I use a combination of top and htop to monitor the servers usage. I generally ignore the "load av." value, as you point out, per kernel this can be completely different.
Generally I use top to view al the servers load per process, here's an example output of top with 5 loaded TF2 servers; 25668 tf2 -21 -20 486m 349m 21m R 97 4.4 177:05.31 srcds_linux 26408 tf2 -21 -20 647m 475m 21m R 93 5.9 696:37.88 srcds_linux 32345 tf2 -21 -20 442m 306m 21m R 90 3.8 133:28.53 srcds_linux 3297 tf2 -21 -20 397m 269m 21m R 85 3.4 38:07.04 srcds_linux 25736 tf2 -21 -20 533m 383m 21m S 68 4.8 180:19.68 srcds_linux Cpu0 : 72.3%us, 0.4%sy, 0.0%ni, 26.3%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.9%si, 0.0%st Cpu1 : 73.3%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 26.2%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.4%si, 0.0%st Cpu2 : 66.1%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 33.5%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.5%si, 0.0%st Cpu3 : 70.2%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 29.8%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Cpu4 : 76.2%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 23.8%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Cpu5 : 71.6%us, 0.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 28.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Cpu6 : 68.5%us, 0.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 31.1%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Cpu7 : 67.1%us, 2.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.2%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.5%si, 0.0%st load average: 6.84 Overall seen per cpu this is around 70-80% load steady, grouped together this comes to 73% overall load. htop shows 100+ CPU load per process, so not sure what to think of that, the overall load output per CPU however reads the same as top does. Mind you, this when 5 of the 7 servers are full. I generally assign 1 server per CPU core, and leave 1 core free for all OS stuff to be handled on. Saint K. ________________________________________ From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of ics [i...@ics-base.net] Sent: 25 July 2011 13:42 To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] cpu on i7 920 How load averages and cpu usage depends a lot from the kernel. I believe individual process usage more than core load or load averages. For example, if you look with "top" program, you might see something like this: load average: 0.34, 0.42, 0.23 Cpu0 : 29.0%us, 0.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 66.8%id, 0.5%wa, 0.0%hi, 2.2%si, 1.0%st Cpu1 : 26.0%us, 0.7%sy, 0.0%ni, 70.4%id, 1.1%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.7%si, 1.1%st and when you look at the process list below that stuff, you might see the real values: PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 32094 game 20 0 493m 356m 11m R 61 17.8 638:30.00 srcds_linux 1499 game 20 0 487m 359m 11m S 54 17.9 516:56.58 srcds_linux So i'd rather believe the values in process list than the summary above. Then again, on our other bigger machine, the values are a bit different. The summary again: load average: 4.63, 5.07, 5.35 Cpu0 : 16.3%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 82.4%id, 0.3%wa, 0.0%hi, 1.0%si, 0.0%st Cpu1 : 73.1%us, 0.7%sy, 0.0%ni, 25.6%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.7%si, 0.0%st Cpu2 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 97.7%id, 2.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.3%si, 0.0%st Cpu3 : 68.1%us, 1.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.2%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.7%si, 0.0%st And the process info: PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 7339 game 20 0 392m 258m 21m S 78 3.3 91:41.36 srcds_linux 10288 game 20 0 399m 275m 21m R 73 3.5 38:46.18 srcds_linux 7262 game 20 0 317m 201m 15m S 18 2.5 195:01.39 srcds_linux 5686 game 20 0 341m 157m 12m R 2 2.0 11:07.86 srcds_linux As you can see, the differences are caused by different kernels. We had 2.6.37 or something where there was constant 16-20 load average while the cpu stats where the same, just load went bonkers. Never seen 100% unless the server is stuck like it has been couple of times since the lazor update. It might be i7 issue, we have older machines. -ics 25.7.2011 14:22, Saint K. kirjoitti: > I could live with that, at least knowing a reason why my 3000,- euro hardware > can only sustain 7-ish 24 slots TF2 servers. > > Saint K. > ________________________________________ > From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com > [hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of James Botting > [bottswan...@googlemail.com] > Sent: 25 July 2011 13:18 > To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] cpu on i7 920 > > Everytime a new weapon goes 'pew pew' the laser destroys a section of your > CPU. > It's a new feature. > > On 25/07/2011 12:14, "Andres Pozos"<javato...@yahoo.es> wrote: > >> Its not a bug its a "feature", jk. Orangebox take teh 100% cpu usage in >> a core with more than 25 slots, i tested it on many linux distros, many >> kernel configurations and many cpus. So welcome to the club. >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for the reply. >>> >>> The servers are build according to Tyans best practise, so everything >>> is inserted in the correct slots. I've recently also updated the BIOS >>> versions to be sure. >>> >>> One thing I notice, at the memory settings is a "snooping" option - If >>> this is disabled, the overall load is slightly lower (as it is now). >>> >>> I'd generally wouldn't blame the hardware either, however, seeing I >>> can't find anything software wise, it's the logical next thing to look >>> at. >>> >>> Any more tips are welcome! >>> >>> Saint K. >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Jesse Molina [je...@opendreams.net] >>> Sent: 25 July 2011 12:36 >>> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list >>> Cc: Saint K. >>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] cpu on i7 920 >>> >>> Looks fine, don't mess with it. >>> >>> generic-receive-offload would be good if you were doing 10G networking, >>> but otherwise forget about it. >>> >>> Make sure that your RAM is in the right slots as recommended by Tyan. >>> That can slow things down sometimes but I would not expect that to cause >>> such significant problems. >>> >>> I have no clue. Grab an old cruddy desktop, set it up on your home >>> network, do a quickplay qualified server, and then watch how it runs. >>> Use the same OS and versions you are using on your server and then start >>> twiddling. You only need about a 2Mbps upstream rate for a 24-player >>> server. >>> >>> I would blame software way before I started blaming hardware. >>> >>> Actually, I'd blame something you did unknowingly, first, but just >>> because I'm a BOFH. >>> >>> People like to throw switches in the desperate hope that one of them was >>> put there by system developers specifically just to slow things down, >>> like a turbo switch on an old 486DX. >>> >>> "Surely, my sheer desire to make things go faster and by randomly >>> throwing every bios setting, recompiling my kernel with obscure realtime >>> patches I found, enabling weird sysctrl parameters, and buying a Bigfoot >>> gaming NIC will make things go faster!" >>> >>> And that's why we have fps_max 1000 and 100PPS update/cmd rates on >>> servers. >>> >>> I really have no idea what I'm talking about. I've only been messing >>> with srcds servers for the last nine months or so. >>> >>> Then again... Seagate did ship me all of those SATA 300 drives with the >>> 150-limiting jumpers on by default. >>> >>> >>> >>> Saint K. wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am getting these values returned, not entirely sure what I am >>>> looking at; >>>> >>>> mrblonde:~# ethtool -k eth0 >>>> Offload parameters for eth0: >>>> rx-checksumming: on >>>> tx-checksumming: on >>>> scatter-gather: on >>>> tcp-segmentation-offload: off >>>> udp-fragmentation-offload: off >>>> generic-segmentation-offload: on >>>> generic-receive-offload: off >>>> large-receive-offload: off >>>> ntuple-filters: off >>>> receive-hashing: off >>>> >>>> >>>> Does this appear to be good? I've checked the chipset specs and it >>>> supports checksum offloading. >>>> >>>> Saint K. >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com >>>> [hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Andrew >>>> Armitage [and...@thirdlife.org] >>>> Sent: 25 July 2011 10:36 >>>> To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com >>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] cpu on i7 920 >>>> >>>> I wouldn't expect problems with. But I happily admit to being no >>>> expert. >>>> >>>> Try ethtool -k<interface> and see what's what? >>>> >>>> A >>>> >>>> On 25/07/2011 08:42, Saint K. wrote: >>>>> The servers are build on Tyan Tempest i5400 motherboards, based on >>>>> the Intel 5400B chipset platform, the Gbit nic's used on this board >>>>> are Intel 82563EB chips. >>>>> >>>>> I've never really figured the load could be related to the networking >>>>> chip as our throughput tests never really show any issues when tested >>>>> (with all sorts of packet sizes, tcp/udp) >>>>> >>>>> Saint K. ________________________________________ From: >>>>> hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com >>>>> [hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Andrew >>>>> Armitage [and...@thirdlife.org] Sent: 25 July 2011 09:36 To: >>>>> hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] cpu on i7 >>>>> 920 >>>>> >>>>> Maybe the issue is the network hardware? HLDS is very network >>>>> intensive. >>>>> >>>>> I believe that some cards support checksum offloading and some >>>>> don't. >>>>> >>>>> A >>>>> >>>>> On 25/07/2011 07:28, Saint K. wrote: >>>>>> What I am still not getting is that our Xeon E5420's are doing >>>>>> like 70-80% load on a single core for 24 players, and our Xeon >>>>>> E5410's 90%+, where you say your older 4600+ does 70%. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tried all sorts of different kernels out there. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there perhaps certain BIOS settings which could benefit when >>>>>> running gameservers on them? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ours surely should perform much better then that? >>>>>> >>>>>> Saint K. ________________________________________ From: >>>>>> hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com >>>>>> [hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Jesse >>>>>> Molina [je...@opendreams.net] Sent: 25 July 2011 05:15 To: >>>>>> Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: >>>>>> [hlds_linux] cpu on i7 920 >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a AMD Phenom x6 1055T doing multiple servers at the same >>>>>> time. TF2 causes the active core to go to 100% for about two >>>>>> seconds during map changes, but otherwise I've never seen it go >>>>>> that high for extended periods of time. Average during full >>>>>> 24-player usage is about 40%. >>>>>> >>>>>> I also have an older AMD Athlon64 x2 4600+ that runs a single >>>>>> 24-player TF2 quickplay server. It averages 70% usage when full >>>>>> and gameplay is great. >>>>>> >>>>>> Both of these are desktop class boards with DDR2 PC800M RAM. >>>>>> Linux 2.6.39. >>>>>> >>>>>> Try watching your CPU usage at (relatively) high resolution with >>>>>> something like "htop -d 1" >>>>>> >>>>>> No clue why you are maxing out like that. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Eric Riemers wrote: >>>>>>> All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I run a 32 slots server on a i7 920 @ 2.67ghz, but i can see >>>>>>> with top and such that its potentially maxing out at 100% at >>>>>>> times since it only uses one core. Is it really now doing so much >>>>>>> cpu that even a i7 core isn't enough? Didn't have much complaints >>>>>>> before the pew pew. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 24 slots on the same server do around 60% when full. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Eric >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, >>>>>>> edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please >>>>>>> visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >>>>>> -- # Jesse Molina # Mail = je...@opendreams.net # Page = >>>>>> page-je...@opendreams.net # Cell = 1.602.323.7608 # Web = >>>>>> http://www.opendreams.net/jesse/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, >>>>>> edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please >>>>>> visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, >>>>>> edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please >>>>>> visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >>>>> _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit >>>>> your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: >>>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit >>>>> your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: >>>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>>> please visit: >>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>>> please visit: >>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >>> -- >>> # Jesse Molina >>> # Mail = je...@opendreams.net >>> # Page = page-je...@opendreams.net >>> # Cell = 1.602.323.7608 >>> # Web = http://www.opendreams.net/jesse/ >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>> please visit: >>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >> please visit: >> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
